As far as the Rules are concerned, high blocking is only a penalty if it forces the target down, out of bounds, out of play, or causes a change of relative position. It requires the Casebook to understand that forceful contact to the head is an automatic penalty because of the safety issues involved.

I don't quite agree that the casebook is required to upgrade a high block to a penalty.

High blocks are under illegal blocking zones, yes.

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:

4.1. Contact Penalties

Gaining position on an opponent, or causing an opponent to lose position to another teammate, due to illegal contact is always considered to have sufficient impact on the game.

So yes the rules make the actions you ascribed it immediate penalties.

However the wording is such that we should read this to say that 'these results are ALLWAYS significant impact but others could become significant as the situation arises. One of the biggest changes of the rules to my eye is the emphasis put on safety.

The word "safe" or "safety" is used 6 times in the rules, each time it is in context of safety being an underpinning requirement of the game.

Most relevant of which to this topic is the summary section on page 1. Which says

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:

Play that is unsafe or illegal may result in a Skater being assessed a penalty, which is served by sitting in the Penalty Box for 30 seconds of Jam time.

This shows that safety is by default a result worth measuring for ALL contact, not just illegal contact. It stands then to reason that a penalty is triggered by a significant impact on either relative/established position or safety.

Logged

I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

The rules lay the foundation of how the game is to be operated and what constitutes a penalty. The casebook is filled with examples that both promote understanding of rules concepts while also changing the severity of certain actions.

This right here is exactly what I am talking about. There is a distinct difference between the rules, and the casebook. Yes, I know that I am arguing semantics, but there is a reason why I am trying to distinguish the difference. If there is ever a scenario in which the rule book says X and the casebook says Y, which should be followed? For me this is very similar to court proceedings, where you have the written law, but you also have the case studies as examples of how the law should be interpreted. If there is a discrepancy, the law is reexamined and a new case study might result. If the casebook disagrees with a rule, then the scenario in the casebook may need to be edited.

An example could include this little bit still in the booksRulebook Errata

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:

Removed on 2016-12-19: “For example, if a team with legal means to stop the period clock (specifically, Team Timeouts or Official Reviews remaining) commits an action that results in the period clock stopping, they should be presumed to have used legal means to do so (and thus would not be penalized).” As the provided example introduced unintended and adverse consequences to the interpretation of related rules.

Casebook

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:

Scenario C4.46White team has used three Team Timeouts during the game. White Captain calls for a Team Timeout. Officials, mistakenly believing that White team has timeouts remaining, grants the request.

Outcome: If White team has an Official Review remaining, they should be considered to have used it as a timeout. If not, White Captain is penalized and the next Jam is started as soon as possible, but at least 30 seconds after the end of the previous Jam.

Rationale: White Captain’s successful, but illegal attempt to stop the period clock prevented the next Jam from starting in a timely manner. If White Captain had legal means to prevent the Jam from starting, legal means should be assumed.

Keep in Mind: Officials should deny requests for a Team Timeout if that team has none remaining. No penalty is warranted if an invalid request for a Team Timeout is denied.

An example could include this little bit still in the booksRulebook Errata

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:

Removed on 2016-12-19: “For example, if a team with legal means to stop the period clock (specifically, Team Timeouts or Official Reviews remaining) commits an action that results in the period clock stopping, they should be presumed to have used legal means to do so (and thus would not be penalized).” As the provided example introduced unintended and adverse consequences to the interpretation of related rules.

Casebook

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:

Scenario C4.46White team has used three Team Timeouts during the game. White Captain calls for a Team Timeout. Officials, mistakenly believing that White team has timeouts remaining, grants the request.

Outcome: If White team has an Official Review remaining, they should be considered to have used it as a timeout. If not, White Captain is penalized and the next Jam is started as soon as possible, but at least 30 seconds after the end of the previous Jam.

Rationale: White Captain’s successful, but illegal attempt to stop the period clock prevented the next Jam from starting in a timely manner. If White Captain had legal means to prevent the Jam from starting, legal means should be assumed.

Keep in Mind: Officials should deny requests for a Team Timeout if that team has none remaining. No penalty is warranted if an invalid request for a Team Timeout is denied.

The intent of the errata was to clarify that ALL Delay of Game penalties were not to be replaced with timeouts. For example, under the previous wording, if one team failed to field a jammer, it would have been justifiable to charge them a timeout rather than penalize the captain. That was NOT the intent of the rule, and there are approximately 3 casebook entries that made that clear.

In this case, the rules were fixed to match the intent. I don't see a conflict with the remaining rules and allowing ORs to be subbed for TTOs to avoid penalties.

To your more general point - my sense is that the intent of the new ruleset is that there should be no direct conflicts between the casebook and the rules, so the question "is the casebook part of the rules" vs. "does the casebook modify the rules" is intended to be moot. That said, every single person I have spoken with in a position to offer an opinion is adamant that the casebook is part of the rules.

to be succinct: Any direct conflicts from rule to casebook (and reverse) are errata and should be reported as such. In the mean time use your best judgment based on the entirety of the rules as a guide for "Correct interpretation" of which one is the error.

Logged

I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.